Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[Viral]

Finally watched it.
Fantastic movie especially when you're past the first 40 minutes. Although the beginning is very true to the book I think it should have been shortened by half. I see that many people (including myself before) were wondering how a book of less than 300 pages (The Hobbit) is adapted in three movies as well as the 1300 pages of TLOTR. Actually it's harder to do the latter, because frankly the first hobbit movie was pretty packed and it included exactly 1/3 from the book. Even right now I'm grateful that Jackson decided to do 3 movies and not 2, mainly because he added so much new material that is not in the book (the story of Radagast, the albino Orc, the Necromancer story). This actually made the movie to look much darker than the book.
Also when I read the book I never thought of Thorin as a bad ass dwarf and Peter Jackson made him really looked like one. I loved him. One think I didn't like was Gollum. I think he looked better in TLOTR. Of course his expressions were much complicated here but he looked plastic to me, especially the eyes. Could say the same for many of the CG in the movie.

I watched the movie in 48 fps. Fu#$ing hated it as I expected. I really hope Hollywood won't go in that direction. I loved the transition from DVD to Blu-ray but this looks so fake. If I want to see something similar I'll just turn on my TV. The magic of the film is no more there. I'm going to see it definitely in IMAX next week.

P.S. Looking forward to the special edition Blu-ray.

 

[redhawk23]

The inflation thing can practically be said and applied for EVERY film under the sun, I have no idea why people are making such a big deal about it for the first time.

Because while its not particularly helpful to compare Avatar's success to Gone With the Wind due to astronomical changes not only in ticket price but of the amount of entertainment and viewing options, in this case we're only making a comparison across 10 years and within the same franchise.

Also off topic, while everyone tries to discredit Avatar's success by citing inflation, the fact is even if you adjust for inflation, it still only drops to number 2, possibly 3 now that Titanic added 300 million to its total this year.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Inflation still makes no sense. All that makes sense is where is stands next to films of its year. ANYONE that brings up inflation is completely forgetting we live in a completely different economic time. Not to mention an INCREASE in ticket prices making people go less. Citing "inflation!" is ignoring that times have changed. With inflation only four movies in the last couple of years reached that high - Avengers and the Batman films.

 

[redhawk23]

Inflation still makes no sense. All that makes sense is where is stands next to films of its year. ANYONE that brings up inflation is completely forgetting we live in a completely different economic time. Not to mention an INCREASE in ticket prices making people go less. Citing "inflation!" is ignoring that times have changed.

You can go further out than a year and in context of films of the past few years, it's doing ok.

But keep in mind there was a minor recession taking place in 2001 as well.

The fact of the matter is the way Hollywood chooses to measure success is self deluding.

The record business has changed its standards for what to expect for a successful album, but even taking something a modern standards, they aren't going to try and claim any current album is selling at all as well as they well 10-15 years ago. The way Hollywood and the press talk though a billion dollar movie in a decade ago is the same as one now and its simply not the case.

 

[HowardStark]

The first hobbit film is actually 10 minutes shorter than the theatrical cut of Fellowship of the Ring. Also, we're talking about a 3d film in 2012 that is the followup to one of the most successful and popular franchies of all time vs a 2d film in 2001.

I certainly wouldn't call its gross a disappointment necessarily but it is by no means a greater success so far than Fellowship.

LOTR was never a quick scoring threat. LOTR always pretty much used leg success to gain its money and its like Harry Potter loved WW. If The Hobbit only makes lets say 850 million ww does that mean its a bad movie. I think it pretty written in stone we are getting the other movies. Because Most of 2 is likely if not all done.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Yeah, exactly, as I said only 4 films have got to that level WITH inflation in the last couple of years, 2 of them this year - I checked (and that was Avengers and the last Batman film). As said, why are people bringing up inflation here? You can bring it up for 90% of all films out in the last couple of years. So, why now?

Minor, but not as bad as the one that hit us for years now. A lot can change in 10 years, hell ten years ago I was 14 lol.

Hollywood is looking at recent years. And in recent years? It is doing good and is breaking records. It's the most successful December film for years.

I think, like everything else, it has its ups and downs in reflection to the economic times.

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah, exactly, as I said only 4 films have got to that level WITH inflation in the last couple of years. As said, why are people bringing up inflation here? You can bring it up for 90% of all films out in the last couple of years. So, why now?

Minor, but not as bad as the one that hit us for years now.

Hollywood is looking at recent years. And in recent years? It is doing good and is breaking records.

I think, like everything else, it has its ups and downs in reflection to the economic times.

They do. Pretty much in any box office discussion. I don't know what your point is.

And while The Hobbit's growth was healthy, it wasn't as high as it might have been if it had been better received. Its doing solid business but its not like astronomical, like some early winter equivalent of The Avengers or something.

Also which 4 films and which level are you talking about? Are you talking about the Billion Dollar mark? Because Harry Potter, Transformers, and Pirates of the Carribbean all grossed a billion last year.

In 2010 Disney alone had 2 movies reach 1 billion.

Its meaningless though when ticket sales overall have actually dropped each year even as home video sales have also dropped.

By any measure movies in general aren't as successful as those from just a few years ago.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I've never seen anyone bringing it up. It seems more focused on this film due to a prior trilogy with forgetting how much times have changed since then. Hell, even the weather's changed astronomically since then. What's your point? I'm saying with "inflation! inflation!" more factors need to come into account - raised ticket prices equals less people going, tough economic times equals less people going, it's not as easy as saying "inflation!" Let's take it back in time and then see.

I really don't see how it could be better received. Unless people expected it to be one of the billion dollar earners. With the times and people putting more into Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises over the summer, I highly doubt we'd have three in one year. And seeing the numbers - this year is already rare as is.

 

[HowardStark]

Lets not forget Avengers reaped Spring and Summer profits which is more because lack of school and so on. The Hobbit if released in the Summer would be having more mega bucks. But also this movie is probably what an hour longer then Avengers and probably 30 minutes longer then TDKR.

 

[HowardStark]

I've never seen anyone bringing it up. It seems more focused on this film due to a prior trilogy with forgetting how much times have changed since then. Hell, even the weather's changed astronomically since then. What's your point?

I really don't see how it could be better received. Unless people expected it to be one of the billion dollar earners. With the times and people putting more into Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises over the summer, I highly doubt we'd have three in one year.

Skyfall is not far from that Club and If any film can hit a Billion WW its The Hobbit. Pirates 4 Only made what 240 million domestically and it still made a a Billion WW.

 

[BMM]

I've never seen anyone bringing it up.

It's brought up all the time.

 

[redhawk23]

I've never seen anyone bringing it up. It seems more focused on this film due to a prior trilogy with forgetting how much times have changed since then. Hell, even the weather's changed astronomically since then. What's your point? I'm saying with "inflation! inflation!" more factors need to come into account - raised ticket prices equals less people going, tough economic times equals less people going, it's not as easy as saying "inflation!" Let's take it back in time and then see.

I really don't see how it could be better received. Unless people expected it to be one of the billion dollar earners. With the times and people putting more into Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises over the summer, I highly doubt we'd have three in one year.

If a movie making the same money as a 10 year older movie despite a 3d surcharge and increased prices in general it is disingenuous to say it as successful. You can cite any possible reason you want but fact of the matter is fewer people have gone to see it, and it was FAR less successful critically.


And yeah I wasn't saying it had to Avengers numbers, that's why I said some kind of winter-equivalent. Avengers didn't just break the previous record, it buried it.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Skyfall is not far from that Club and If any film can hit a Billion WW its The Hobbit. Pirates 4 Only made what 240 million domestically and it still made a a Billion WW.

Well, to be more exact - not billion - talking 460 + domestic.

--------

And as said, I've never really seen it.

--------

And as I said that's a simplification of things. Take it back in time and then see. Or bring the others forward and then see. For the ages we're living in right now to say it isn't a success? Is kind of absurd. And I'm only seeing "inflation!" brought up whenever someone mentions it being successful. And yes, in recent years? It is sucessfull. I also doubt anyone expected it to reach that mid 400 range in this day and age - few movies do, only four have in the last couple of years.

 

[redhawk23]

Skyfall is not far from that Club and If any film can hit a Billion WW its The Hobbit. Pirates 4 Only made what 240 million domestically and it still made a a Billion WW.

Seriously Skyfall will probably hit a billion even without China. It certainly will after opening there.

 

[redhawk23]

Also for comparison, just last month Breaking Dawn opened with 141 million.


Boxoffice Mojo's analysis.

Edit, forgot the link.

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3587&p=.htm

They place the gross in context.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Also for comparison, just last month Breaking Dawn opened with 141 million.


Boxoffice Mojo's analysis.

I'd say Breaking Dawn is an awful comparison first off. That's the last Twilight film of the series. So, of course it's going to rank high and not just for this year. But, still I would call having the sixth best opening of the year something. Besides that film was way beyond front-loaded and I wouldn't be surprised if Skyfall surpasses it despite having a smaller opening weekend! I'm actually surprised Breaking Dawn didn't do better since it was the last and that Hunger Games beat it out. Since when is being in the top ten of the year overall a bad thing, maybe even 6 or 5th if not higher (just look at Skyfall - might even have a chance at being # 4)? So, when exactly did this become a 'bad' thing?

 

[HowardStark]

Well lets go by the Box Office of today because really the past is gone and these are the prices today.

 

[redhawk23]

I'd say Breaking Dawn is an awful comparison first off. That's the last Twilight film of the series. So, of course it's going to rank high and not just for this year. But, still I would call having the sixth best opening of the year something. Besides that film was way beyond front-loaded and I wouldn't be surprised if Skyfall surpasses it despite having a smaller opening weekend! I'm actually surprised Breaking Dawn didn't do better since it was the last and that Hunger Games beat it out. Since when is being in the top ten of the year overall a bad thing, maybe even 6 or 5th if not higher (just look at Skyfall - might even have a chance at being # 4)? So, when exactly did this become a 'bad' thing?

No one is saying the film did badly, just that it didn't do as fantastically as the "it broke records!" headlines might imply.

The fact of the matter is this is part of one of the most popular franchises of all time. It could have done better.

Its similar to how while The Dark Knight Rises had a fantastic opening weekend, the highest ever for a 2d film in fact, there was still some indication that the gross was muted somewhat and that the film didn't do quite as well as it could of if the circumstances of that weekend had been different.

In general, the performance is of course solid.

 

[CGHulk]

Dwarf women?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...81185570.71252.191879797567496&type=1&theater


Peter on the deleted scenes
http://link.brightcove.com/services...lk8Oyb_XuMTA4BVHHE3Iac6Ve&bctid=2033679806001

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Not that much.

When is the last time you watched it? His scene with Gandalf is longer then his appearance here, and that isn't counting his creation of his army, which is spread out over a few scenes and his attack on the Fellowship.

Lets not forget Avengers reaped Spring and Summer profits which is more because lack of school and so on. The Hobbit if released in the Summer would be having more mega bucks. But also this movie is probably what an hour longer then Avengers and probably 30 minutes longer then TDKR.

The two highest grossing films ever were not released in the summer.

I'd say Breaking Dawn is an awful comparison first off. That's the last Twilight film of the series. So, of course it's going to rank high and not just for this year. But, still I would call having the sixth best opening of the year something. Besides that film was way beyond front-loaded and I wouldn't be surprised if Skyfall surpasses it despite having a smaller opening weekend! I'm actually surprised Breaking Dawn didn't do better since it was the last and that Hunger Games beat it out. Since when is being in the top ten of the year overall a bad thing, maybe even 6 or 5th if not higher (just look at Skyfall - might even have a chance at being # 4)? So, when exactly did this become a 'bad' thing?

I never said it was bad, but it did underachieve, which I found surprising.

 

[redhawk23]

[YT]V2k_EiYh4IU[/YT]

This....I don't even know what this is.

 

[nightwing06]

Sitting in the theatre before the film started ,i wondered if i would be able to lose myself in Middle
Earth 9 years after the last journey there written by the imaginitive J. R. R. Tolkien and brilliantly
directed by Peter Jackson and shaped by an extremely talented staff.
Aside from some off putting distractions my question was answered.

The Hobbit takes its time to get going,as i was introduced to a host dwarves and reintroduced to
the clever and brave hobbit Bilbo Baggins briefly portrayed by Ian Holm and gamely portraying a younger
Bilbo Martin Freeman, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and an extremely brief cameo by Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins
The only other fully fleshed out character is Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) and they set out on a quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from the dragon Smaug

I suspect the trend of a more drawn out story to continue in the next 2 hour plus films,as characters and sequences not found in the book are created to expand
the film.Which have been said to be created for the audiences who love the films so much why not give them 3 films,but others may view this as a way
to line the pockets of the 3 studios backing the film series.If these created sequences include slapstick like moments that are in the Hobbit it may
even turn the biggest fans of the series off .The Hobbit is not as epic as the previous films but it is involving at times and quite thrilling as we are introduced
to trolls,goblins,and a slighlty seen Smaug the dragon.Also an unrelenting villain Azog the Defiler" or "The Pale Orc portrayed by Manu Bennett.
Last but not least Andy Serkis returns as Gollum his scenes with Freeman truly took me back to the time my mother read these stories to me.Can someone
give Serkis an Oscar already?!?


Now on to the controversial 48 frames per second visual method.
The Good: Some scenes turn out stunningly vivid and Jacksons dream of immersing the viewer in the film really works .Some sequences
feel realistic and incredibly exciting .Kind of like watching a live ,elaborate stage production.
The Bad:Some sequences look like a prologue to a medieval video game.Some as if i pushed the fast forward button on my remote,or
one of those History channel re-enactments.
So it was really a mixed bag for me .I would like to see the film in regular 3D or 2D to compare the differences.

In the end Sci -Fi and Fantasy done on such a meticulous and high quality level as this always appeals to me and its hard to resist a trip to
the theatre to see such work on the big screen.So of course i will be there to continue the journey in
The Desolation of Smaug (2013), and There and Back Again (2014)

Scale of 1-10 a 7½

 

[CGHulk]

A criticism I'm hearing is that some of the action sequences are way to outlandish. The freedoms that directors now have with CG has resulted in sequences that are way over the top. As in the Hobbit when the company falls down the cliff on a piece of bridge in that they somehow all are able to stay onboard and nobody even gets hurt. Then the Goblin King fall on top of them they are all able to walk away without any of them having a single broken bone!


Why is Azog CG when he could easily be played by an actor in make up?


In regards to the 3D 48fps, it makes scenes look so real that you are standing right there. It's a 3D environment that the audience now enters. As in the riddles in the dark and the dinner sequence at Bag End the lighting is now so noticeably studio lighting. I believe that is what's throwing people off about the 3D. The studio lighting is now more noticeable.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

A criticism I'm hearing is that some of the action sequences are way to outlandish. The freedoms that directors now have with CG has resulted in sequences that are way over the top. As in the Hobbit when the company falls down the cliff on a piece of bridge in that they somehow all are able to stay onboard and nobody even gets hurt. Then the Goblin King fall on top of them they are all able to walk away without any of them having a single broken bone!


Why is Azog CG when he could easily be played by an actor in make up?


In regards to the 3D 48fps, it makes scenes look so real that you are standing right there. It's a 3D environment that the audience now enters. As in the riddles in the dark and the dinner sequence at Bag End the lighting is now so noticeably studio lighting. I believe that is what's throwing people off about the 3D. The studio lighting is now more noticeable.

Are you asking? Because it seems that most would agree it is because he was added late in the game, possibly taking scenes from Bolg.

 

[redhawk23]

While I was really suspicious of the CG Azog going in and I agree that it could have been done practically, I though the CG for him was super solid. In the end though he didn't look that much different than the the Engineers from Prometheus, which were done practically.

The CG for Azog was great and distracted me far less than the fact that Azog barely does anything.